In re E.S., 2011 Ohio 2408

The juvenile court terminated J.S.'s parental rights and granted permanent custody of C.S. and E.S. to the Cuyahoga County DHS.
Children were removed from the mother in August 2008; the older child is 3 at removal and has ADHD; the younger was removed at birth with concerns about the mother's mental stability.
The children currently reside with a maternal great aunt who is fostering them with a plan for adoption by the great aunt; fathers have not pursued parental rights.
Mother has a long-standing mental illness, diagnosed as schizophrenia, with histories of auditory hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and medication noncompliance in the past.
A 2010 psychological evaluation showed ongoing psychotic symptoms despite medication, and the mother struggled with maintaining medical appointments and interacting with the children during visitations.
The agency’s case plan aimed at reunification required stable housing, parenting classes, and medication compliance; the mother completed several parenting programs but maintained poor interaction with the children during visits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody	Mother argues she can be a fit parent with support and that the plan was remedial.	Agency contends mother’s chronic mental illness and failure to remedy conditions endanger reunification; best interests favored permanent custody.	Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports permanent custody.
Whether mother’s mental illness precluded placement with her within a reasonable time	Mother contends illness was managed and progress showed possibility of placement.	Agency asserts ongoing psychotic symptoms and lack of interaction prevent placement within reasonable time.	Yes; evidence showed ongoing symptoms preventing reasonable placement.
Whether completion of parenting classes suffices to demonstrate fitness	Mother emphasizes multiple completed classes as proof of fitness to parent.	Agency emphasizes that class completion alone does not remedy conditions or demonstrate capacity to care for two children.	No; class completion alone is insufficient to establish fitness.
Whether permanent custody is in the children’s best interests	Mother argues return to her would be best with support.	Children are thriving with the great aunt; returning would be disruptive given past issues and mother’s stability concerns.	Yes; best interests favored permanent custody with the current placement.

In re Adoption of Holcomb, 18 Ohio St.3d 361 (Ohio 1985) (clear and convincing standard defined)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-780) (case plan is a means to a goal, not the goal)